Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, I'll call the planning commission meeting for Tuesday, April 7th, um to order. Daisy, can you confirm that the uh Kansas Open Meeting Act required notice has been properly provided? Yes, I can confirm that the packet was posted and the required notice was provided. Thank you, Daisy. Roll call, please. Commissioner Rogers, here. Commissioner McFaten, here. Commissioner Mike Cell, here. Commissioner Alt here. Commissioner Farber here. Sorry. Commissioner Vancouver here. And Chair Waters here.

So, with seven out of seven members, we have a quorum and we can proceed with business. Thank you, Daisy. Are there any corrections to the minutes of the March 17th meeting? If there are none, I would entertain a motion to approve. I'd motion make that motion. Second. Second. It's been moved and second to approve the minutes of the March 17th meeting. All in favor say I. I. Opposed? Motion carries. All right, we'll move into new business. It does not. Go ahead, Dustin.

And andrew just just came in. So I think we do have an the applicant for 3.2. 3.1. 3.1. Yes. Okay. All right. I'll let the uh staff proceed with application uh ZMA26-00001. Right. Gage.

Sounds good. All right. Good afternoon, commissioners. Our first item today is application number ZMA26-00001, a request for a zoning map amendment for the 9 south edition. Go to the next slide. So this is an agenda of um what we will talk through. I will talk through an overview of the application, a vicinity map, some background on the property, the nature of what's being requested, which includes both a reszoning request, and two requested landscaping variations, the applicable regulations, staff's analysis, comments we received from neighboring property owners, staff's findings, the alternatives available for the commission, and staff's recommendation. So the application overview, starting with the application overview, the applicant 9 South Development LLC represented by Jeff Mays of Compro Comproy is requesting a zoning map amendment from C3 Shopping Center to PC5 Planned Service Commercial. The subject property is approximately 8.31 acres located on the east side of Marketplace. That's the South 9inth Street frontage road, situated between the Marketplace Apartments to the north and Sam's Club to the south. The legal description for this property

is lots 1 through 8, block one of the replat of 9 South edition, and the property is currently zoned C3 and is vacant and undeveloped. The comprehensive plan designates this property for commercial use. In terms of surrounding context, to the north is an R3 zone is R3 zoning, which is the marketplace apartment complex. To the south is PC3, which includes Sam Club, Sam's Club and related commercial uses. To the east is R2 Single or multiple family residential, excuse me, along Highland Avenue. And to the west is C5 commercial uses including Tucson's Arby's Olive Garden and a vacant building. And the applicant's proposed use is multi-use, multi-tenant commercial, retail, and office center. You can move forward. So this is a vicinity map. You can see the subject property. It is the highlighted vacant property. It's highlighted in blue. Um, and then on the west side you can see the frontage road and then South Ninth Street. On the west side or the east side you can see the residential neighborhood along Highland Avenue and then the commercial uses that surround the other sides of the property. A brief history of this property. This site was historically known as the Duly Pumpkin Patch. It was annexed in 1971 and sat zoned A1 Agricultural for nearly 50 years without being platted or developed. 9 South Development LLC purchased the property in 2017 and pursued reszoning. On January 7th, 2019, the city commission approved ordinance number 18-10926

reszoning the site from A1 to C3. At that time, no specific uses were proposed. Shortly before that, in December of 2018, the original four lot final plat was approved and public infrastructure was constructed, including the extension of marketplace, water, sanitary sewer, and the storm water detention pond. You'll see referenced as lot one on the current replat. And then most recently on December 17th, 2024, the planning commission approved a replat application P181B that reconfigured the subdivision into its current form. Eight lots and two common access drives designated as reserves A and B. As part of the replant, a variation from the street frontage requirement under section 3672 was granted for lots 3, five, and 8, which are the interior lots accessed by those drives rather than a public street. And the city commission subsequently accepted the revised easement dedications on the Replaid at its November 24th, 2025 meeting. So now to the heart of the request. The applicant is asking to reszone from C3 shopping center district to PC5 planned service commercial. The proposed uses restaurants, retail, professional offices, and multi-tenant centers are already permitted under the C3 district. The reasonzoning is being sought for one specific purpose to access the C5 sign regulations. The replot of the property created three interior lots. Those would be lots 3, five, and 8 that are not directly visible from Marketplace or South 9th Street. To propose identification for businesses on those

lots, the applicant proposes to place a shared pole or monument sign in reserve C, which is highlighted on your screen, a small common area tract along the west boundary between lots four and six. because that sign would be located on a separate tract from the businesses it advertises. It would be classified as an advertising sign or an off- premise sign under section 425061. Um, and off- premise signs are prohibited in the C3 district under section 425211, but they are permitted in the C5 district. So by reszoning to PC5, the applicant gains access to the C5 sign regulations. In addition to the reszoning, the applicant is requesting two landscape var landscape regulation variations, both applying specifically to lots 3, 5, and 8, the interior lots. The authority for these variations comes from section 424097 which allows the restrictions of the underlying district to be modified by the ordinance approving a planned commercial district. So these variations if granted would be embedded directly in the resoning ordinance. First the applicant is requesting full relief from the front yard landscaping requirement. The basis for this request is that all is that these are interior lots with frontage along the access drives not public streets. The frontage lots 2 4 6 and 7 will handle the street facing landscaping along marketplace. And the sec second the applicant requests full relief from the rear landscape buffer requirement. The buffer is this 15- ft planted buffer required

when commercial development of Butt's residential development. In this case, along the eastern pro boundary adjacent to the R2 neighborhood on Highland Avenue. The applicant argues that the existing residential fencing provides screening and that applying the buffer would significantly constrain building placement, parking layout, and internal circulation on those already constrained interior lots. And the applicant cites two specific site hardships that they believe support both requests. First would be the 50-foot right-of-way dedication required for the marketplace extension which reduce the developable depth of the property and the second the single frontage infill nature of the site which limits overall flexibility for development and circulation. Um on that I just wanted to note as part of the applicants um request they have provided a um four-page overview which was provided in your packets detailing their request. They also provided the two exhibits showed on the screen but also provided in today's packet. Those exhibits are intended to demonstrate um the landscaping restraints on one specific lot in this case lot five. So exhibit Apologies I'm getting there. Okay. So, exhibit one um is if the accepted or the requested landscape variations were approved and exhibit two is if the required landscaping was in place. Um this is intended to showcase the restriction on overall

development if the required landscaping um is or if the landscaping is required. So we can move on to slide eight. So, the current C3 district um was designed for a broad range of retail shopping facilities primarily consisting of specialty shops and stores on a site of no less than one acre. The proposed C5 district, which is the underlying district for the PC5 zoning request, is designed for business and commercial uses that draw customers from motorists on the highway or for which a highway or arterial location is especially useful or necessary. and planned commercial zoning or the PC prefix in the requested zoning enables commercial development that may need to deviate from the underlying district regulations in order to accommodate innovative site planning that's compatible with surrounding development and minimizes impacts on infrastructure. The PC number identifies the underlying commercial district. So PC5 uses C5 as its baseline zoning and all permitted uses and restrictions follow the C5 service commercial zoning unless the approving ordinance says otherwise. The next would be the development standards. This slide summarizes the C5 development standards that would apply as the baseline if PC5 zoning is approved subject to any conditions in the approving ordinance. A a couple of highlights. Signage under C5 permits all functional and structural types including off-remise advertising signs at up to four square feet per lineal foot of building frontage and a maximum height of 50 ft. Setbacks include a 25-

ft front yard setback and 10-ft side and rear yard setbacks were abuing a residential district. Screening requires 6-ft sight obscuring screening along all light lot lines abuing a residential district. Though this requirement is waved if the non-residential use is 100 or more feet from the residential lot line. And then number four, exist exterior lighting must be shaded to avoid direct light on the residential property. Next, we'll highlight the landscaping regulations. So, front yard landscaping um front yard landscaping is required in applicable zoning districts when adjacent to public streets. two, the amount based on the amount of required front yard landscaping is based on lot depth and lineal feet of street frontage. There's a minimum of one shade tree or three ornamental trees per 500 square ft of required front yard landscaping. And for lots three, five, and eight, the interior lots of this subdivision, front yard landscaping is calculated using the frontage attribute attribution method established in plat 7 of the replat, which the as we discussed um because lots 3, five, and 8 are accessible from the common access roads um and a access easement across the front of those lots. The landscaping requirements are attributed through um their frontage on those access points. Parking lot land. Excuse sorry. Parking lot landscape or excuse me, sorry. Rear yard landscaping.

Rear yard landscaping is required where non-residential development abuts residential development. There's a minimum of a 15 foot wide reducible buffer that is reducible to 10 feet for developments with more than one required buffer. Planting requirements include one shade tree and five shrubs or two ornamental trees and five shrubs per 50 lineal feet, at least onethird of which must be evergreen. and no buildings, driveways, or accessory facilities may be located within the required rear landscaping buffer. And I did want to highlight the parking lot landscaping. Parking lot landscaping is required for parking lots with more than 50 spaces. Landscaped islands equ must equate to 5% of the total paved area and open parking areas must be screened to a height of 3 ft adjacent to streets. So the applicant is requesting relief from the first two. Um however they are still proposing to do or planning to do the parking lot landscaping as required. The following matters shall be considered when approving or disapproving a resoning request. So these are the criteria that the planning commission must review and we will go through in our staff analysis. Number one, the character of the neighborhood and the uses and zoning of nearby property. Two, the suitability of the subject property for development with uses permitted under existing zone zoning. Three, the availability of public facilities and services to support the uses permitted on the subject property under the proposed zoning. Four, the conformance of the requested change to the city's comprehensive plan. And five, any other

information or factors relevant to the subject resoning request. So starting with the reszoning itself, the applicant is not seeking to intensify the allowed uses on the property. The anticipated uses, restaurants, retail, professional offices, multi-tenant retail are all permitted in the existing C3 district. The change to a PC5 classification is being requested specifically to access the C5 sign regulations which permit off-remise advertising signs. The lot configuration approved in the replat with interior lots served by common access drives rather than the public street frontage creates a need for a shared identification sign on the street frontage. In regard to suitability under existing zoning, the C3 district already permits all of the uses the applicant has identified. The gap is in the prohibition of off-remise advertising signs under section 425211. Interior lots 35 and 8 have no direct visibility from marketplace or South 9th Street. The replat's lock configuration which the applicant designed is what created this visibility gap and PC5 resolves it by providing access to the C5 sign standards. In regard to character of the neighborhood, the site is squarely within the South Ninth Street commercial corridor. It's flanked by commercial to the south and to the west. It has the um marketplace apartments to the north and then the eastern boundary is where the site meets the R2 residential

neighborhood along Highland Avenue and that interface is at the center of the landscaping variation discussion. Public utilities and services, all infrastructure is in place. marketplace, the water and sewer systems, the curb cuts on South Knight Street, and the storm water detention facility are built. The change from C3 to PC5 with the intended C3 uses does not change the intensity of uses and therefore does not generate any additional infrastructure demand beyond what was already planned for the subdivision. On conformance with the comprehensive plan, the future land use map designates this property commercial which is consistent with PC5. The location and res the location and development criteria outlined in the comprehensive plan are met. The site is on a major arterial. It sits between highdensity residential and a major commercial anchor. Shared access drives serve multiple lots and the reciprocal easement agreements provide cross access between uses. I do want to flag the comprehensive plan criterion that speaks directly to today's discussion. The plan calls for transitions between commercial development and less intense adjacent uses to minimize the impact of noise, light, traffic and intensity of commercial uses. That criterion is squarely at the issue at at issue in the rear landscape buffer request and I will cover the staff's analysis of the landscaping request. Now, starting with front yard landscaping, if full relief is granted for lots 3, five, and 8, there would be no required landscaping transition between the

access drives and the parking and building areas on those lots. That said, staff notes that the front yard landscaping requirement was designed primarily for lots fronting public streets in lots 3, five, and eight front internal access drives, not public streets. The frontage lots 2, 4, 6, and 7 will carry the full front yard landscaping obligation along marketplace. and parking lot landscaping, including the 5% island requirement, remains applicable regardless of the requested front yard landscaping variation. On rear yard landscaping, if full relief is granted, no landscape buffer would exist between the commercial development and adjacent residential properties. Only the 6-foot sight obscuring screening requirement would remain. buildings, parking and site improvements could extend to the minimum building setback with no vegetative transition. A planted buffer pres pro provides noise reduction, light filtering, aesthetic softening, and heat island mitigation that a fence cannot replicate. Comprehensive plan development criteria call for transitions that minimize noise, light, and intensity on adjacent residential areas. Staff would note there is a 20ft utility easement containing an 8-in water man and overhead electric lines along the east boundary of 9 south um that abuts the residential to the east per section 4263A. A property owner may place nonstructural improvements within a utility easement at their own risk, but the risk of conflict with underground and overhead utilities is elevated when you do place landscaping in a utility easement.

Overall, the planning commission's decisions on landscape variations, the commission has the discretion to grant full relief, partial relief, or no relief for each variation independently. The front and rear guard buffer request do not need to be identical in how the planning commission sees the appropriate level of relief. Because this development has more than one required buffer, the code allows the rear buffer to be reduced from 15 ft to 10 ft. The commission could also consider requiring a reduced buffer with enhanced screening, varying relief by lot or requiring a reduced landscaping standard along the access drive frontages. So the decision before you today is multifaceted. you you have the discretion to pick the amount of relief that you um would like to give, if any, from the landscape regulations. Staff wants to uh would like to make the commission aware that we received input from neighboring property owners. Staff first met with Mr. Glenn Boyd, owner of 2824 Highland Avenue on March 30th, 2026 to discuss the application. Mr. Boyd's property abuts the eastern boundary of the 9 south edition. Mr. Boyd's concern centered on the requested elimination of the rear landscape buffer. Additionally, staff met with Mr. Dale Merkelin on behalf of Gan Paul's who is the owner of 2820 Highland Avenue on April 3rd, 2026 to discuss the application. Miss Paul's property abuts the eastern boundary of the 9 south edition. Mr. Mkeland's concerns also centered on the requested elimination of the rear landscape buffer. A summary of staff's

communication with neighboring property owners has been provided in today's meeting packet for the planning commission's consideration of the requested variations to the landscape regulations. Moving into staff's findings, we'll start with staff's findings in support of approving the reszoning from C3 to PC5. Factor one, suitability of the property for development under existing zoning. The property is currently zoned C3, which permits the full range of uses proposed by the applicant. However, the C3 district prohibits off- premise advertising signs under section 425211. The replac created interior lots, lots 3, five, and 8 that are not visible from marketplace or South Ninth Street without the ability to erect a shared identification sign on the street frontage. These interior lots could face a marketability constraint. The that that the PC5 classification addresses this constraint by providing access to the C5 sign regulations. Number two, the proposed change would not create an isolated district. The property is bordered by PC3 zoning to the south and C5 zoning to the west. PC5 zoning is consistent with the existing pattern of planned commercial and service commercial districts in the South 9th Street corridor. Factor two, character of the neighborhood. The property is situated within the established South KN Street commercial corridor and is bordered by commercial development on two sides with uses limited with uses limited to C3 as recommended by staff. The use profile would remain consistent with the surrounding commercial area and with the expectations established when the

property was originally reszoned from A1 to C3 in 2018. Factor three, adequacy of public facilities and services. All public infrastructure needed to serve a commercial development is already in place, including water, sanitary sewer, the marketplace road extension, curb cuts on South Ninth Street, and the storm water detention facility. The change from C3 to PC5 with C3 use limitations would not change the intensity of uses allowed and would not create additional demand on infrastructure. Factor four, conformance with the comprehensive plan. The future land use map designates this property for commercial uses. The requested PC5 zoning with C3 use limitations is consistent with this designation and meets the applicable location and development criteria for commercial land use areas. And we'll move on to staff's findings in support of approval of the landscape variations. The front yard landscaping along lots 3, five, and eight. The lots are interior and not directly visible from the public rightway. The frontage attributed to these lots under plat 7 is along the internal common area access drives, not public streets. Landscaping placed along these internal frontages provides limited public benefit. The frontage lots, lots 2, four, six, and seven, will provide the full front yard landscaping along marketplace where the development interfaces with the public rightway. And three, parking lot landscaping requirements under section 42657, including the 5% landscape island requirement and three-foot screening requirement, would still apply regardless of any front yard variation.

In regard to the rear landscape buffer, existing residential fencing provides ground level visual screening along the eastern boundary. A 20- foot utility easement containing an 8-in water man and overhead electric lines runs along the entire eastern boundary, limiting the practical utility of plantings in that area. And three, the full buffer would significantly restrict building placement, parking layout, and internal circulation on the interior lots, which are already constrained in depth. and a finding in support of both variations. The 50-foot rightway dedication for the marketplace extension and the single frontage condition of the site create a practical difficulty in meeting both the front yard landscaping and rear buffer requirements while allowing reasonable development of the interior parcels. Next, staff's findings in support of denying the landscape variations. Number one, the landscape regulations under 42651 serve purposes beyond public visibility, including environmental quality, storm water management, energy efficiency, and shade. Full elimination on three of seven buildable lots would result in no required landscaping, no required landscape transition between the access drives and the parking and building areas on these lots. The lot configuration, including the interior lots served by access drives, is the result of the developer's own replat design. The constraints created by the configuration do not constitute a hardship imposed by forces beyond the developer's control. In regard to the rear landscape buffer, the rear buffer under section 42656 exists specifically to protect residential properties from the direct impacts of adjacent commercial

development. A screening fence does not provide the same environmental buffering as a planted landscape buffer, including noise reduction, light filtering, and heat island mitigation. The residential lots along Highland Avenue have relatively short rear yards, reducing the effective separation distance between dwelling units in the proposed commercial development and increasing the importance of a buffer as a transition element. Three, the comprehensive plan development criteria state that transitions between commercial development and less intense adjacent uses should minimize the impacts of noise, light, traffic op traffic operations, and intensity. The landscape buffer is the code's primary regulatory tool for achieving this transition along the eastern boundary. and four, a neighboring property owner has expressed opposition to the elimination of the rear buffer as documented in section five of the staff report. The planning commission would have the following alternatives. The planning commission could recommend approval of PC5 zoning, including the requested landscape variations in full subject to appropriate conditions. The planning commission could recommend approval of the PC5 zoning without granting the requested or excuse me, let me restart. The planning comm number one, the planning commission could recommend approval of PC5 zoning including the requested landscape variations in full subject to appropriate conditions. Two, the planning commission could recommend approval of PC5 zoning while modifying the requested landscape variations subject to appropriate conditions. Three, the planning commission could recommend approval of PC5 zoning without granting the requested landscape variations requiring

full compliance with the landscaping regulations of section 4265. Four, the planning commission could recommend that consideration of this application be postponed to a specific date and time to allow the applicant or staff to provide additional information. And this motion would need to include a specific meeting date. Or five, the planning commission could recommend denial of this application provided appropriate findings are made. Staff's recommendation with respect to the applications requested variations from the landscape regulations of section 4265. Staff recommends that the planning commission determine the appropriate level of relief for each variation based on the findings, discussion, and property owner input presented in this report. The commission has the discretion to grant full relief, partial relief, or no relief for each of the two requested variations. independently. These options include for the front yard landscaping, you could grant full relief with landscaping concentrated on the marketplace frontage lots, you could require a reduced landscaping standard along the drive frontage. Or three, you could require full compliance with section 42655. In regard to the rear landscape buffer, you could grant full relief with the six-foot screening requirement remaining in place. You could require a reduced buffer width of 10 feet as permitted under section 42656B1 for developments with more than one required buffer. Three, you could require a reduced buffer combined with enhanced screening such as evergreen plantings or masonry wall. Or four, you could require full compliance with section 42656.

That is a 15 foot buffer or a 10-ft buffer under the multiple buffer provision. The requested landscaping variations can only be granted through the ordinance approving the planned commercial district under section 42497. Accordingly, a motion to recommend approval of the resoning should include the commission's determination on each of the two requested variations. In regard to the resoning, staff would recommend that the permitted and conditional uses be limited to those in the C3 district under section 4282 and 4283 or 42282 and 42283. And that the C3 use limitations under section 42286 apply, including the requirement that all business service, storage, and display of goods be conducted within a completely enclosed building. Staff recommends approval of the requested zoning map amendment from C3 Shopping Center to plan service commercial subject to the following conditions. Condition one, the permitted and conditional uses shall be limited to those uses listed in the C3 district under section 42282 and 42283 except that parking garages and lots shall be a permitted use. This condition comes from the applicant is proposing to develop some retail and commercial uses. Oftent times these uses have a a need for excess parking. Um, and so the applicant has expressed a request to have parking garages and more specifically parking lots be a permitted use to allow potentially that use to be located on

one of the lots to provide parking for some of the commercial development in the subdivision. Condition two, the C3 district use limitations under 42286 shall apply. Three, all signage shall be subject to the C3 district sign regulations under section 42521 except that an advertising or off-remise sign shall be permitted on reserve C and be limited to providing signage only for businesses located on lots three, five, and 8 of the replat of the 9 south edition. Condition four, six-foot sight obscuring screening consistent with section 42286 shall be provided along all lot lines abuing a residential district. Five, exterior lighting fixtures shall be shaded so that no direct light is cast upon any property located in a residential district and so that no glare is visible to any traffic on any public street. In accordance with section 42286, a site development plan for each lot shall be submitted and approved by the planning commission prior to issuance of a building permit in for that lot in accordance with section 424918. Seven, all site development plans for lots 1 through 8 shall include landscaping and compliance with C3 district regulations. section 4265 in the planned commercial district sign regulations under chapter 42 article 4 division 2 and 8 development of lots 1 through 8 shall conform to the approved site development plans commissioners that concludes staff's presentation and we are available to answer any questions you might have and

the applicant is on Zoom thank you Gage You might want to get a drink of water if you don't mind. Can I ask a quick question? Excuse me. Sorry to barge in. Go ahead. Just just to but not belabor a point. Gage, can you please redo your your number one of the staff recommendation when we're talking about parking garages being a permitted use? I'm wondering if that's left over or I'm Dan. Also on the on the Zoom call is Dan Unrew, one of the partners of the development and I'm confused as to what that language was and just I didn't want to get hung up on it and then but can you please explain where that comes from because I'm not clear D

answer that for you Jeff this is Dustin Michaelelsson um the language about the parking lots and garages to to leave that option open to however lot 8 is developed. So C5 district allows parking lots and garages as as a use as a permitted use. So to leave that option open in the future to using it as a standalone lot if that were the way you want to develop it. That's why we recommend to allow to staff's recommendation is to keep the bulk regulations and the and uh use limitations consistent with C3 the way that that it was intended before. But with that parking lot and garages use from the C5 to be allowed in case you ever want to use lot 8 that way just to leave that option open. It's not to necessarily say that it wasn't it's not meant to say that you will do that with lot 8. It was just to leave that option open. Um but

well bravo to staff. You're outthinking us. So thank you for that. I I just when I saw it I didn't I wasn't exactly sure we hadn't covered that and I wasn't exactly sure where that was coming from. So, with that, I'll let I'll we'll listen to you.

I want to make one more uh comment real quick uh to the commission. Uh just to clarify here, I noticed there's u some language missing from the alternatives that I want to make clear. Since this is a resoning, you are making a recommendation on approval to the board of commissioners. So, you're making a recommendation to the city commission. Uh with this change to plan to plan commercial, there are a few different ways that you can go about plan commercial and what the applicants here are requesting is to have deferred site plans. That's one of the ways that you can go about reszoning to plan commercial with the option to defer the site plan approval to a later time when each lot is developed on a lotby-lot basis. So effectively today you're reviewing the validity of of of uh the proposed reasonzoning but what is coming out of it you aren't you aren't approving the reasonzoning you are making a recommendation to the city commission. So that will um go to the city commission next either um you know assuming that it's an approval or an affirmative recommendation that will go to the city commission for consideration and there will be an ordinance written for that to outline everything that's in this and if you have any questions on that I can kind of clarify and

Okay thank you Justin. All right, commissioners. I open it up for questions of staff first. Dan, do you have some questions?

Yeah, I've got a question. Uh, you said that the U vegetation it requirements are met through lots 2, four, and six, and it meets uh regulation. So, the applicant is requesting the landscaping variations specifically for lots 3, five, and 8 of the 9 south subdivision. So, lots, four, and then six and seven, they are proposing to install the landscaping as required per the landscaping regulations. So, so that comment is to say and and this the applicant outlines it as part of their um request narrative is that they are requesting the landscaping variations for the back lots or the lots along the access road, but they are proposing to do the full landscaping in those front four lots. So Dustin has it pulled up on the screen so you can see, but the lots that front on market place um they are proposing to have the landscaping as required in the code. The the requested variations are for the back lots, lots eight, which are at the bottom of your screen, lot five, and then lot three, which is directly south of the pond and north of lot five. Does that help answer your question?

It helps. Um, if we make the recommendation that because I don't see it drawn in here and I it hasn't been approved and it hasn't been required yet for the front lots. So, I'm wondering yeah what I'm worried about is if we approve this, does it get done? So in the in the plan commercial process when you're doing deferred site plan uh approval that each law will have to come back to the planning commission for approval of a site development plan which will be the approved site plan. So everything has to be developed according to the site plan that you approve at that time. It's just that on some of these multi-tenant property or developments they don't know who's going to go in where. And so they're not building out the entire shopping center at this time. That's going to be on a lot by lot. basis and so each of those plans. So

come up. Yeah, you're concerned. We'll we'll have a point where you guys get to address it um and review that. But at this time it's bare ground. It's eight lots. And so what this is doing is setting up the regulations that would apply when someone is going to develop that lot. Does that help explain? That helps. I don't know if we can pose a question to the applicant. Oh, what was that? Oh, well, I'm just wondering what the likelihood of that uh the vegetation being a hardship and a restriction at a later date on the front lots.

That I that's probably best for the applicant to answer, but um the the and I I don't want to oversp speak for for Jeff. He's welcome to to chime in when when you guys get to him on this, but the lots 3, five, and 8 since they are back off of the street and the they have a buff they have a required buffer on the rear on the east side and then they would have front yard landscaping in the front. Uh what I believe their their rationale here is that you essentially have two rows of front yard landscaping that that gets applied there. And so that's that it ends up affecting building size down the road. And so they were leaving the they were leaving the front yard landscaping along marketplace just as it would normally be by the zoning regulations. Um now as to whether that becomes a problem for any individual lot developer, that's there's no way for us to really anticipate that.

Okay. Uh, I still want to continue with questions of staff at this time. Go ahead. Okay. So, this building is it going to take up lots 3, five, and 8, the 227 ft building? That is just a concept drawing. That is that that's not a proposed drawing or building at this time. We have no um we but but but in general they're they're planning to use those three lots for a building of some kind probably with tenants in there. Is that on each side? Is that

I believe that's the the the plan, but that's probably a better question for to clarify just to see where the applicants at because I know that there's probably a lot of movement trying to see who wants to take these lots. So I'll leave that to them. Commissioner Al to clarif clarify that this exhibit is an example. This is only lot five. So I think your question as it related to is it lots three, five and eight. The exhibit that was provided and as Dustin indicated, it's an example of potential development. It's an example of potential development only on lot five. They did not provide a example of all three lots. So, okay, if that answers here.

All right. Thank you. All right. Are there any other questions of staff? Um, Dustin or Gage, either one. So, if if we pass this and it goes to the commission and it it's turned into an ordinance, then the developer has to go by what what that ordinance says. Correct. I mean they they wouldn't be able or I guess they could come to back to us when we did did an individual site plan and ask for something as of a variance to that but uh we would have to go back and change the ordinance then. Correct.

Correct. So when the site plan site development plan comes to you for review, you would you would be treating that ordinance as the the standards to which you're applying that you're reviewing that site development plan which incorporate this the ordinance will say that for anything not listed that it uses the C3 or the C5, you know, regulation. So that becomes like the standard that you're that you're reviewing to which brings in the other zoning regulations that aren't really addressed in that ordinance. Um so that that does become the standard for a variation. This is the time when they're trying to establish what variations from those zoning regulations there are. U now as if in the future they see a need for another variation, it would be coming back to amend the the plan commercial zoning.

Okay. Thank you. Is there any other PC5 zoned areas um I guess within the vicinity or area you want to Yep, he's already on it. So we we'll bring up the GIS map. There are some uh more or less adjacent to this. And are they I guess it's probably applicant question. Never mind.

So this is the the current zoning map of the area. The property is is currently zoned C3 and again it's being proposed to be PC5. Across the street on the west side of Ninth Street, you have primarily all C5 zoning. So this resoning to to PC5 would be an extension of the C5 zoning that you see on the west side of Ninth Street. And being a planned development, it would uh be coherent with the surrounding pling commercial that you have to the south. So to the south you have PC3 zoning and to the west you have C5 zoning.

Okay. Is the sign regulations for PC5 um where they could have taller signs or a larger amount of signage? You could potentially have taller signs. Larger amount is unlikely because both the C3 and C4 district allow four square ft of sign area per lineal foot of building frontage. So the amount of signage is probably going to be the same whether it's C3 or C5, but you could potentially have taller signs. The biggest thing here is that you could have an off-remise sign. And what they're wanting to do is have a shared sign that has all the different tenants on it. Similar that we have like we have at like a Midstate Plaza or something like that where there's multiple tenants on a single sign out front that would advertise and notify people that those businesses are in this development. And so in the C3 district, you can't have signs that that identify or advertise businesses that are on a different property. And because the properties to the back, the on lots 3, five, and and 8 would not have frontage or be on a different lot, they couldn't do that in the C3 C3 district, which is why they're proposing PC5, so they could have that sign. When you have a large um building with multiple bu units in them or whatever, what dictates the amount of frontage per business or whatever? I guess is that if if one business takes up like half of it and then you have like two other businesses, does that one business then have a large majority of that signage? So the way we we typically administered that is if you have a building that's multiple tenants like a like a strip building of some kind, we allocate a

total sum of of sign area that's allowed for that entire building and then as signs come on board, it uses that that total summation until you get to the end of it and then you don't have anymore. And so the what we do is we rely on the landlord to kind of help control and divvy up what each tenant gets in terms of sign area. Now with us allowing four square feet per linear foot of building frontage that's very very rarely a problem. So it doesn't really become an issue but that is how we administer that. Okay.

All right. Any other questions of staff? All right. I would u open it up for the applicant to address the questions that have been brought forth.

Thank you, Chair Waters and and Commission. Chairman Waters, it's good to see you there this afternoon. We we enjoyed a wonderful day yesterday up on the third floor in jury duty selection. So, I'm I'm glad to see you're able to be there this afternoon. Uh thank you all for your time and consideration of this this application. Uh it's pretty simple for us and and we lar we worked with staff closely to get to this point to present this application to you and uh followed largely their recommendations to get to a to a goal. Um the the signage and the and the the straight C3 to PC5 is just as staff has said it is nothing more than us needing or requesting the ability to put a sign out on marketplace to identify the proposed retail center in the rear. Uh so it it is nothing more than that and the fact of the matter is it gives you all through going from a straight C3 zoning which would be simply to apply for the permit and go and never come before your party to you get site plan approval as we go forward. Uh but it was a step that we had to do as developers in order to get some signage recognition for a proposed retail center in the rear. uh as the market has talked to us, I think the date that sticks out certainly to Dan and I is as owners of the development is 2018 and here we are in front of you eight years later asking and we do have a great deal of velocity uh in the in the development. The question has now become as we've worked with staff on how this is going to build out is what can we accomplish and what can't we and so the bigger question in our mind is I mean we've got the replat done the signage piece going to PC5

seems to make seems to make a great deal of sense the it's it's all about this landscape requirement in the rear lots and how we have to adhere to that because it essentially makes the rear part of that property after and and this was all well before you guys' time. I think most all of you uh we were forced to put that frontage road in. We argued to not have to do that and circulate internally and be able to reserve that that depth for the future development of the of this of this lot as a whole when when purchased. And but we were no we had to connect that road which bad idea then bad idea when we had to do it and arguably a bad idea today but here we are and that the exhibits that we sent you were to illustrate that the strict adherence to the landscape code shows you that the only amount of room that we have left is a and I'm sorry I'm now in Oklahoma at a funeral but u but it becomes an unbuildable lot if we have front yard and rear yard landscape requirements and we lose enough parking that we as developers through the strict adherence of the code become lost on what we can do with that with the with those rear yard rear lots. Pardon me. So, uh, Commissioner McFaden, we have, pardon me, McFaden, uh, you, uh, you will have coming before you as a result of these actions today, planning oversight for those front lots. Now, as we as developers are making it very clear what those regulations are and what the requirements are going to be, we're not asking for relief from anything upfront. Uh, I use I use the Midstate or the Central Mall as an example in that all those front pads have all that front yard landscaping requirement. We're not asking for relief

from that, but but the way the staff was having to enforce the code without your action today was to make us have two front yard landscape buffers. Plus, and this is something that we need to address as a community. It's not nine self-development specific, but it's something that we need to really look at as an entire throughout our community. It is counterintuitive to think that we have to put in 15t rear yard bumper or buffer of plantings because we're up against residential and then screen those plantings from the residential. It just it it it makes no sense. It is our code. Staff doesn't staff's not guilty here. It's just we need to rectify this, but reality is everybody's so busy dealing with other things that we just I mean Lauren and I have talked about it. She's like, "Bring an application and we can address it." But there's just us and staff are too busy to get to that point. Uh if you recall, we just went through all that with sidewalks out on Becks. But moral of the story is what we're trying to define in this application is what would the commission recommend to us or allow us to do from a landscaping relief perspective in the development overall. We're not asking for front yard relief. We're just we're just asking for don't make it redundant and then don't make us have 15t in the rear that we that that we then in turn have to screen from from the from the residential neighbors. Uh it's not that we're not empathetic at all and and are concerned as developers as to I mean we have no intention of going and building a 6-foot privacy fence and putting a curb up against it. But that 15 ft and again what that exhibit was meant to illustrate to you is you make us put a privacy fence 15

ft. How much building can we get in there? And those exhibits were intended to illustrate to you that it become it becomes unbuildable back there if we can't get some relief from the strict application of the code. So I think that's the that's the gist of our request. uh we lose if you look at those exhibits closely, we lose an entire row of parking and the parking in the rear to and at some point and and we actively have people I spoke to today that are interested in going in that strip center in the rear and we've got everybody on hold because we need to get through this process which we very much appreciate your time and I would like to stand for any questions you may have.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mazize. Uh, Mr. McFadden, does did your question get answered? Yes. Okay. All right. And then, Mr. Alt, did your Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Are there any other questions of the applicant? Okay. Hearing none, I would now open it up to members of the public in our audience today. If they have any um comments or concerns they'd like to address, please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record.

I'm Glenn Boyd, live at 2824 Highland. It's at the south end of Pumpkin Patch. And I definitely have an issue with his characteration of no uh green relief because otherwise what you're asking us is to basically put a parking lot right against our property line. Uh that has to do the green relief helps with heat relief during the summer. Because concrete is nothing but a heat sink. It also has to do with sound. And I understand you're talking about doing the green and then doing the privacy fence. And you have stated that there's privacy fences all along that stretch. I'm sorry. A third of it proper properties don't have privacy fences. A third of them have very rickety prop uh fences. two of them have adequate um fences, but what you're wanting to do, and they're shallow lots. The city when they zoned that residential and followed the um transmission lines and stuff like that, they made them shallow lots. So when you talk about putting concrete right up against our property, you're looking at 25 ft to the houses and that is a burden on us. The noise I was at your meeting 2017 and you said you'd take care of us. go look at Dylan's on Ohio Street that the C13 back landscaping would apply. Now, what you're asking us to do is basically put a parking lot right to our property

line. And it's like, and I do understand back in 217, I was against them extending the um front um marketplace road because I knew it was going to impact us eventually. I was for where they would just let you plat it right off Ninth Street. So, because I knew there would be a con there would be consequences of extending that uh frontage road, but now you're asking us to bite the bullet for that decision and you're basically getting you're asking for more square footage. It's not about parking because the parking and this is and I went to uh I went to your staff and they were great. Uh, and but they gave me information that did not come out in a flyer. You're asking for basically six more feet on that back lot for the store. Your parking and everything else is still the same. You didn't change any of that. So, basically, you're asking for more square footage in the building itself. I have no issue with the front side. I have no issue with the signage, but I definitely have an issue with putting a parking uh lot right against my property. And if people could read, I had to have come come to planning commission, your staff to explain to me what we're talking about. Most people don't have the time to do that. That's the only reason you had two people

by just what the flyer information we got sent out. You can't read it. You don't know what you're asking for. You say you want um what full release from the rear landscapecaping. We should We didn't even know what that meant. I had to come to the uh staff to have it shown to me and they gave me zip one and zip two of five. Mr. Boy, excuse me. Um we need to limit um our comments to say three minutes. So

I I think it would be beneficial to have to clarify that point that you just mentioned though. Uh and I I would like Mr. way to expand on that a bit about the information provided because to our knowledge it was only what was in the application, what was submitted by the applicant and what went into the staff report. It's I just wanted him to have a chance to clarify that to make sure that that's on the record here. Um I believe he might be talking about the difference between what was in the property owner letter that got sent out and what's in the full application. So I'm going to let him expand on that, but you know that's fine. This is what property owners had to go off of. Can I bring this to show you to the

That's the plat that was actually that's part of the packet. Yeah, we have that. We have that. Okay. Yeah. Now, can you tell me exactly what it says? I think the Mr. I use three power glasses and I couldn't read it. I had to use a micros uh magnifying glass to actually read what it says. That's the reason I'm one of the only ones here about this. We had the I had to go to your um benefit of getting it on a PDF and we could read. But um Dustin, did was that available to them though in PDF form as well?

Um as far as during that meeting, I don't know. It would be available. So to explain, we had a meeting with Mr. Boyd to which is part of the normal process. Anybody who receives a letter, gets a notification letter can come in to meet with staff to see what's in the application. And so I just wanted to make sure that that was clarified that to our knowledge there was nothing that wasn't presented to the board that it may have not been in the in the letter the public notice or the property owner notice because those typically go out with a zone with a vicinity map and a site plan or whatever is submitted um but not always the full application packet you know every document in there. So, just wanted to make sure that that point was clear and make sure that that's

consistent with what what you received. They got you the information that you needed, right? Okay. Okay. Good. But I was appealing to you guys, so it's a difference point, but I've only got three minutes. I'm over time. Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Boyd. I do remember talking to you back in 2017. Okay. Yes, sir. I recall. Thank you. All right. Is there anyone else in the audience that has any um comments? Okay, seeing none, Dustin, is there anyone? Madam Chair, yes,

Madam Chair, could I interject for one quick second, please? Just to answer Mr. Boards, it may be to the benefit of the commission. We are more than happy for the burden of that of that sixoot fence to fall on our development as we develop. I mean, we we have we have full expectations of of built of putting that fence across there. I if if that wasn't conveyed or maybe it's not it we're happy to carry the burden of of of making that fence be consistent all the way across the entire back of the development. Um it's a setback is even the more important part having at least some um I don't know that you can hear

between 5 to 15 some number in there that we can homeowners can read. Mr. Boy Mr. Boyd you want to make more comments if you would just step back up the microphone please because it needs to go on the record and so Okay. Okay.

So Jeff can hear you. I know the homeowners need some relief from the total relief that that you're asking for. You know, we don't think we should have to bear the total burden of concrete right up against our property when the zoning calls for 15 foot of grain. That's, you know, I don't think that we should be the one that has to bear that burden. Okay. Thank you for your comments. All right, Dustin, is there anyone online that would have any comments or care to speak? It

it appears that everybody online is related to uh is here for one of the cases uh that are before you. So, I don't see anybody else online that is looking to speak or anything. Okay. Thank you. All right, commissioners. Um, if there's no other questions of staff or the applicant, I open it up for discussion. I'd like a little clarification. I know there's a a utility easement. Uh, if I'm looking at this map correctly, there's a utility easement on that side in between the commercial and residential properties. That is correct.

Okay. So, when we're talking about a a plantings or a fence, are they going to be able to fence on that easement or is it going to be they they um they would be able to uh put a fence there in with with a couple conditions. Uh they can't typically go you can't put a structure in a in an easement. Structures are not allowed. Fences are allowed at your own at your own risk. This is a um in utility easements. Now, this

let me just make sure this is just a utility. In drainage easements, there are more limited. You have to get city engineer approval. Uh you can put a fence in an in a utility easement at your own risk. Uh you can um plant uh you can plant shrubs and and trees and stuff, but if they have to get in and do work, that's why that's why it's at the property owner's risk. Um, now I will add a an an additional point for you to consider is that um depending how easements are used or what's existing in them uh plant certain plantings, trees and stuff can start to cause issues with with lines um that are underground.

Um but as far as the fence being up on top, that's that's just an at your own risk thing. if they need to go in and do work, they they will pull the fence down if they need to get in there. So So the question then goes to to Mr. Mays, is that fence going to be in that easement or is it going to be on your side? Well, I mean, we would anticipate it on the property line and to Dustin's comment or Miss M, we we would anti and if they have to I mean that's just the way the game's played.

Uh we all have that in our houses in in our rear yard. if you've got any utility back there, if they got to get if they got to take the fence down, they got to take the fence down, you got to put them back up. So, we would anticipate it on the property line. Uh, and again, at at the developer's cost if that needs to be a condition of your action. Now, just just clarification. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. So, is the ease how isn't the easement like 12 to 15 ft? 20 ft wide. So, they're not going to put the parking lot on the easement, right? U there's there's no prohibition against putting parking over an easement. Um it's a Will there be concrete on the easement?

Yeah. No, I mean it would be paving. Uh I don't know if they would be using asphalt or or concrete, but that that's actually not that uncommon in a lot of these commercial developments. There's easements running through the middle of parking lots. Um well, Mr. Boyd, I'm just trying to clarify Mr. Boyd's comment about the parking going right up to his property line. Uh basically the the answer is that that they could put uh paving over the easement. Um and then the fence would be on the east side of their property line.

I don't know the answer to that. I don't the the the expectation would be that the fence which is related to this development would fall within the property lines of the 9 south of the replat of 9 south edition. So if if they were to go put a fence outside of these lots within the 9 south edition, then that would be putting a fence on someone else's property. So that would that would either be a problem. It could be an issue or it could just be a matter of getting permission. But the expectation that we're working with is that any site screening, landscaping requirements, screening requirements, they would occur on the property.

But on the property line is on the property. Correct. It it would be I'm sure that it would fall within the property line to be on the property. I mean, might be an inch over, but if it Oh, yeah. I'm not trying to be picky here. I'm just trying to understand the the concept of the parking the concrete right up against the land or the homeowners property. I'm trying to determine if that's actually going to happen or if there's going to be some if we if we gave relief from it, that would be a possibility.

And and again, keep in mind that with this having deferred site plan approval, you would get to see the de the site development plan that's being proposed for each lot. And so you would the expectation on that site development plan is that it includes all landscaping and screening and and everything. So you would have a chance to review that and see that that screening is being provided for each of those lots before it's developed as part of that review. Dustin, a particular lot, I mean, they could say we want to put, you know, 20 foot width of landscaping in there for our lot in this 20 foot if if it's not

even if you gave them the variation, they could still choose to do landscaping. Is that is that what you're asking? Yeah, it definitely wouldn't prohibit someone from doing that. Okay. Um it's hard for me to speak to because that's a lot of uh you know, there's a lot of stuff built into that that's really the developers part of it.

It seems to me that the homeowners when they bought those places and developed them that they had a reasonable expectation that there would be a fence and some screening there. and and I I totally understand things from from Jeff Maize's point and the developers point as well. Um it seems like we have a some negotiation to do here. I'm going to throw an idea out there. Um and maybe see what you guys think and what Jeff thinks. What if we hit some kind of compromise in the middle at say 8 feet and and that had to be a green space that had to have some kind of shrubs that would would help um mitigate the noise and then also the heat in that.

Oh, go ahead. Mr. Boyd, could you come up to the podium? I want to clarify um Pat's the 8 ft from the property line. From the property. Okay. Yeah. All right. Go ahead, Mr. boy. Um, preferably I would have had it 10 foot. Okay. Um, because we're looking at 15 to five. Um,

yeah, any relief would help. Um, higher screening would help. Um it's hard to really and I understand the point about uh privacy fence and then you have the green but the greenery helps from heat. So yes, I mean I understand I'm not sitting here thinking I'm we're going to get the 15t of greenery. I'm not that naive. Um, so any relief would definitely help. A higher screening would help being that they're going to be driving to the back of the lot swinging around because when it was a C3 when you zoned it before there was not going to be any back back parking. So higher screening would help and more than but I do realize that we're going to have to compromise because that

so if you had the 10 ft and a fence and no greenery would that would that get you no um no you want the greenery as well as the fence

you have to have some relief from the concrete even if you put a 8ft barrier up there and you run concrete to it and you have shallow backyards, you definitely are impacted utility wise, um enjoyment in your backyard wise, especially when you have traffic that's going to be coming through and turning into. So, you know, it's not like that's just going to come in from the south or that's coming from the west making a U-turn to park. So, we're going to be dealing with traffic, traffic lights, um, car lights, things like that. Um, so the screening would be to help that. The extra greenery would help be helped with the utilities with the heat aspect of it.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Boyd. All right, commissioners. I continue with discussion. I'm thinking along the same lines. If you reduce that area, do you reduce the amount of vegetation you put in there or do you squish the same amount of vegetation requirements of x amount of plants per 50 ft or

Well, that that would be uh that would be up to the commission to make a decision on that if you if you'd like to look at a different solution. So with variations, you do have the ability to approve a lesser variation, meaning you can you could go with something in between what the requirement is and what the applicant's requesting. That is that's just a part of doing the variations. you you do have the ability to say that we're not going to approve we you know we re that if you recognize that the full regulations uh you feel is too much and you feel that going the other way is too much you can land on something in the middle and you do have the ability to kind of determine that

I'm also wondering if there's a regulation to keep the vegetation alive I mean we've had that with uh with a weak with approved landscaping. That is the expectation is that it remains in good condition. It's alive, right? Yes. It's it's an it becomes an approved site plan by each lot. So, the expectation is that that required landscaping does stay alive. Okay. Um Jeff, I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Thank you very much and thank you, Madam Chair. Uh so as I indicated earlier, it would not be our intention to build a 6ft fence and put a curb up against it and to in in developing this. So we have no reservation relative to some level of a buffer and and again being empathetic to the to our neighbors uh that worked with us back in 18 or 17 18 when we were plotting this uh I personally if I were to close my and I and I've got partners and one of which is here today with us but uh if I were to close my eyes I would like to see a requirement so we can take action and start working towards development of this project rather RA than continuing to wonder what it's going to be. Uh if we could get a 5-ft, you know, we're going to put the fence in, we're going to get a 5ft buffer and we need to put colmer type trees along that property line. You know, I heard one comment about a 10-ft fence. Well, 10ft fence has become difficult to build and maintain and certainly within a I mean, unless we're going to talk about building block walls and then five foot's not going to do it to make it stand up because it's going to fall over. I mean, just the logistics of what you actually see in building those, having built them. Uh, but wanting to be responsible and good neighbors like we did when we bought this and started this process. We have no no issue if if if staff could or I mean, excuse me, if the commission could find a way to and and feel like we are working with the neighbors, which we sincerely want to do. And if it was a we built we we have the obligation to put in the rear yard. We had the obligation to put the fence up and to have a 5-ft buffer in which we could work with the city staff and and the forester on what trees appropriate in in a 5-ft planting area that's not going to outrow it. It's not going to go and can get tall and get

above that fence. I think we're accomplishing everyone's goals. Our whole thing as developers as we talk to these retailers about coming to Salina is what we need to know from from your action and the subsequent action of the city commission is what can and can't we do because we can't answer the basic question of what can you build us and when can you build it for us until we get through this process. So and what we're trying to do is maintain the most amount of flexibility but it could be that that thing that is 8 ft back there. I I would rather have more room in the front sidewalk and have color trees in the back that cover up those houses that never see anything and have a wider sidewalk that we can put some really cool planters in to be a nice frontage and to offset the front yard landscape as you walk into this retail center. I would rather have that for us as developers that type of flexibility than to sit here and argue over two feet in the rear yard right now. I mean, if you we would be agreeable and it would work for us if you could we will at our cost we will put the privacy fence in for all those lots across the back. Give us a fiveyard rear yard landscape buffer that we have the requirement to put in a colmer type tree

5 foot. I know that I know that the the I believe and and staff help me here, but I think it calls for cedars that have a tendency to get wide and big and are going to outgrow that five foot area versus that. I mean, I know we have them because they've planted on some of our property stat or the city has a a slender tall tree that could screen uh we wouldn't anticipate any parking at We wouldn't Thank you. We wouldn't anticipate any parking towards the towards the east towards them. That would be right now the site plan that we're looking at the most based upon your all's action is staff parking that would be facing a budding or facing into the building. So that that would be a fence, five yards of a colmer type tree, a driveway, and parking that faces the building. And I'll and

I think you mean five feet, not five yards. Yeah, I'm sorry. 5T. Yes. Thank you, Dan. 5T. We're back to 15 feet. Good point. So to answer just

the other thing I'd like to point out that that I do think is important and I and I know staff's very very aware of it as we as we submit plans is all of our lighting will be shaded not to cast on our neighbors whatsoever. So really, it's just again, it's the idiocy of saying you've got to buffer and then you've got to screen. And all we're asking for is some relief of that. And and if you would grant us 5 ft and the privacy fence, uh we can. And if you want to write in a colmer style tree, we can do that. We just need to get to a place where we can understand what we can and can't build so we can go to work trying to build.

Okay. Is Mrs. Is Mrs. Paul's representative here? Just by name. Oh, okay. Okay. No, he um Mr. um Excuse me, Mecclin. Yeah, Mr. Thank you, Commissioner Al. Yeah, Mr. Mecclin indicated that he did come in to speak with staff once he received property owner. He indicated he would not be able to be here at the public hearing, but his comments were highlighted in the

So, you've heard what Mr. May's proposal is, a 5-ft buffer with some planted colmer trees and building a privacy fence the full length of that thing. Do you think that would get you where you need to be?

Well, I guess it comes back to what my options are, right? I would say an 8ft privacy fence with Palmer trees would be more beneficial just because of the coming back driving. I don't think he's going to come off the five and a half foot um setback. Um I was hoping to leave here that we had agreed on a 10-ft set back on the green. Um, so I still would rather have the 10-foot. I know all my neighbors, even though they can't be here because they're working in that will they will realize the impact of having a five foot just a five foot setback. We all will. Um, I do agree that having a trees like you're talking about is a definitely a beneficial thing to do everywhere. Um, because it helps screening. It also helps with the heat reduction. So, I'm definitely not opposed to that. Um, I was hoping for more of a green space between, but that's what's going to be up to you guys, but um,

and you understand the point about the 8ft fence versus the sixoot fence, right? I mean, you you have sixoot fences that are there that are in disrepair right now.

And what you run into is being that within a sixoot fence, fine. If you don't have a lot of traffic comes back, but if you're gonna have a lot of traffic, you take Sonic, they have an eight foot fence that is and even the Mexican uh place next to it, they have 8 foot fences that protects lighting from the, you know, vehicle lighting coming around. And we're going to have that with this um because before there wasn't going to be any buildings in the back per se, but there's going to be possible restaurants, possible drive-throughs, my understanding. So, we will have to deal with that type of lighting, car lighting when it comes makes you and comes into the parking lot. So that's the reason the eight foot fence would be better than the six foot fence. Even with the tree, which I the trees would be great no matter what, the trees would be great. Um, so the fence height would help also.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Thank you, Mr. Boyd. And I'm sorry, the columner trees that he's talking about, and I saw an illustration of those on the screen a moment ago. Are those uh viable for a 5-ft section or or That's what's going to be tricky about it. Yeah.

So, tailor junipers can grow from 15 to 25 ft in height. So, they're very tall. They're very linear. And their spread because they're very culinary is is generally 3 to 5 ft the total with the cross. So that would be about the only variety that comes to my mind that might work. And even then it's I I can't I don't know. I don't know enough about that to say for certain that that would work there. But that is the variety of juniper that I know does very well with our climate zone and soil type. Has a really tight um column or shape to it. So that way it might give it a chance. And it also grows tall.

But that's a you know that's a pretty lay person's opinion on it just from experience with working with landscapers on landscape plans and and not being an actual expert on it. There are a few other columner types that might work as well there. I think there's a couple cypress, but that's that's something that staff and and the developers can work together to get a a decent Sure. There there there are coler shaped trees that that will work in landscape islands like that in kind of narrow strips. Um, and it's a matter of finding what works for this climate zone and and if if there's something that's not on our list and we have city forester and

landscape plans get get a look from him as well for for trees and so um we have the ability to go through that commissioners bear in mind that this site plan comes before you again before approval anyway. All we're asking, I mean, we can't take next steps until we can get some refined action, right, by you and the commission. And so, okay, if we can't come before you and illustrate a a a landscape plan that says that we can fit it in five feet, you still get another bite of that that site plan out.

We're just trying to understand what we have to design within. And if and if it if we've got an extra two feet and it works better for us as opposed to putting it out, I mean, we're trying to build the best product we can for the community and for our tenants. And so we're just trying to get as much flexibility as possible, be empathetic to our to our neighbors, but we've got to have something to find because what we do know is under the strict strict application of the zoning ordinance, we can't develop back there. So really what we need is just I mean we would like to ask for as stated and I will be done talking to you all and allow you to take action but what we are asking for is a 5ft buffer in the rear relief from the front yard bearing in mind that we still have our landscape islands in that parking lot because we'll be over 15 50 stalls so we'll still have trees and landscape islands in the parking lot up front. We would like to have the flexibility to make that sidewalk light wider so that we can do more upfront for a more aesthetic appealing entrance to our develop or to our retail center. But that's I mean that would be our request is that we would ask for the privacy fist be on us and a 5-ft rear landscape buffer and we will be before you again for a site plan approval before we can build it.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mazize. Commissioners, I'd like to close. Can I can I address Mr. Maize one more time? This is this will be the last comment before we make a motion. Keep it under three minutes. I promise. Go. So So Jeff to sum up here, we've been on this for half or an hour and a half now. Um let me just ask you one question. Um Mr. Boyd made the comment about the 8ft fence to to help get this thing done. Would would you go for an 8ft fence and your 5-ft buffer and no front yard set back in the back three lots?

I the only the only reason I question this commissioner is I've never built an 8ft privacy fence and I don't know what that practically does for you. If you if the concern is light as a car comes around one spot behind that center before it's going north and south and there is no light transfer into the backyards. I don't know what 8t does for you that 6 foot doesn't and I I just don't know what exactly that looks like. So for us to agree to that today would be difficult. I don't understand. I mean, I get if I can get a little I mean, again, our neighbors to the to the east. I mean, if if eight, why not 10? And if 10, why not 12? So, I get trying to get all I can get if I were the neighbors. I think that practically speaking, I don't know what eight does six doesn't. And I would be worried about wind maintenance. I mean, all of the things that come to with with

owning stuff something like that. Okay. Thank you. All right, commissioners. Let's make a motion. I think we're trying to compromise. I think 8ft set back, 6ft fence, colmer trees. I think that gets gets him a little bit of space, gets a normal fence so it's not wonky in the future. Gives enough space for the trees. And I would do full grant relief on the front yard. 8 foot setback or five? I'll do eight. You do eight because to give him a little bit a little bit more. Sure.

Okay. and Justin to clarify on page 28 the other um there's eight noted there from the staff subject to the following conditions these eight I'm just clarifying those chair waters can I clarify yes by something real fast yes uh when you when you speak about the setback do you mean landscape buffer I just want to be real clear on that because setback is typically a building setback or a setback to a structure and so um from from the property line. Sure. A foot from the property line. You're talking about the landscape. You're talking about the width of the landscape buffer. Correct. Correct. Okay. Sorry.

I just want to make sure that that word is used cuz correctly because the setback could kind of throw things off if that was and yes with the eight try to make sure all that complies with each other that I've said. So, um, I really think 8T's going to be a little too much. Um, yeah, 6T fence I think is going to be fine, especially with the lighting that's going on there. I wrote down 6t buffer. I know he's talking about 5 foot. We're going to compromise. We're going to get everybody mad at us. Both sides are going to be upset whatever we come up with, but um 8t just seems like a lot of buffer when we can get columner trees that are going to stay within a 5 to 6 foot radius.

Okay. Um, that's that's that was my thinking behind it. Anyway, that's fine. I'll I'd rather see six foot than eight. Okay. Yeah. I'm sorry. Do we do is this a motion? Do we have a motion? Okay. Discussing. So, did you discuss? Were you just discussing? I was just I was I'm just discussing. Sure. To make sure we're all on the same page. Does anyone want to make a motion? Yeah.

I I Madame Chair. Um, I appreciate all the input that has been put in here, uh, from both sides and and again, we're trying to take into account both sides trying to trying to help and make this work. Um, there are eight conditions that are listed on, uh, on my page 28 here. Um, and I would say or make a motion that we send this to the city commission uh for approval of this with a 6-foot landscape buffer and that to keep with the 6-foot privacy screening that is already there. Is that the wording that needs to be in it with colmer trees

and and with the columner trees and of course that's going to um be in that landscaping that's already approved, right? are required. I thought that at a later date that'll that'll be approved at a later date. Yeah, that part in and a sixoot fence. A six foot fence with a sixoot landscaping with the columner tree requirement. And those coloner trees are evergreen trees or just colner trees? Columner. And I'll I'll leave it to staff to work that out with the developer. And I would second that motion. Okay. It's been moved and seconded. um with the eight conditions and then the six-foot landscape buffer, the six-foot high fence. All those in favor say I.

What? They didn't say a decision for front yard. What the front yard? No, the front yard. Yes. So, so a decision would the decision be to grant the full variation for the front yard landscaping? Yes, that yes, that was that was my intent on my I I apologize. I thought that was inside the eight conditions, but yes, the front yard uh elimination. So, so just to make sure that everybody's we might have to have you do it again if that is that okay. Um full relief for from the front yard landscaping 6 foot wide landscape buffer the rear

in the rear in in on the east side. That's a Yeah, the front yard landscaping is a requirement of the rear yard uh landscape buffer. You're saying six foot, correct? With a six foot tall fence. Is that correct? Yes, sir. Okay. Is that how everybody understand and a requirement that it contain uh column or trees? Yes. And a second. You second it. Yep. All those in favor say I. I. I. Opposed. Motion carries. Thank you all. Thank you staff and commissioners. Thank you everyone. Sure. Can I have one comment? Okay. One minute. One minute. Mr. Boyd.

Okay. A third of our properties are not fenced at all. Are you going to be responsible for fencing that or is that going to fall on the homeowners? The the it's on them on the homeowners. Not on their not on the the development. They said they would be on they they would be fencing their properties. I mean, Mr. maze or am I going to have to shell out for a 6ft 154 ft fence? Uh, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Mr. Boyd, could Dustin

to give you an explanation of how this would would work. Um, the developers would have a requirement to to have a sixoot fence. They would have to fence their property to screen it from from yours. So, um, along the east property line, that would have a they would they would be in the requirement is for them to install a sixoot fence. So, does that answer your question? Okay. Okay. Thank you. All right. Let's move on to the next application which is 3.2 Charles Ren. Oh, yeah. That was

I will be presenting this item. So, give me a moment to get the presentation pulled up. Painful. Okay, I'll go back to J.

So, this is this particular application has two items tied to it. So, it is an application for an amended preliminary PDD filed by Charles Rens on behalf of SRH Advisors and the requesting a preliminary development plan approval. So, that's the first item. And then also a recommendation for an amended plan development district ordinance that would go before the city commission. And the reason for that is the property is part of the Wilbur PDD development over on Crawford a little bit to the east of Mry Mountain Crawford. So this is the aerial photo. If you'll remember a few years ago, we had a a Dollar Tree that was going in at the site and we did a a review there as well. In this case, the applicant is requesting just like with the last application, some variations to the regulations and that's why they are amending the PDD um or the new pre preliminary development plan versus just a new final development plan. So, the surrounding area, the properties to the north are R1 single family. The properties to the east is the uh Brookdale Senior Living Nursing Home. And then the properties to the south are the Brook Ridge or excuse me, the the Hillrest Apartments. And then the properties to the west is the other buildings and tenants and properties of the Wilbur PDDD, including the Brookridge Strip Center, which is the most recent development out at this uh PDD for the Wilbur PDD. Some background. The Wilbur PDD was originally developed in 1983 and it's a highly customized PDD that has

C2 development standards. And in addition to the C2 development standards, a few uh limited C3 district uses were permitted. However, Mr. Wilbur did not want to have the full gamut of permitted uses in the C3 district such as grocery stores and some other more intense retails type uses. And though so what he did is he used the C2 um what his staff has determined is a C2 development standards with the C2 uses and adding a few uh C3 uses to it. So the actual zoning is PDC C3 is what staff has determined with C2 uh development standards. So the specific property that we're looking at today is tracks three, four, five, and six which have remained vacant lots um throughout this PDD. So these are lots that have never been developed. What the applicant is proposing is a new office facility uh that would be a little over 6,750 square ft with an additional uh future covered parking that would extend to the north here. Um so here's a the site plan with the building and the covered parking to the north. The scope of this PDD is limited to this these lots. So, it would not impact any of the other tracks within the Wilbur PDD, just the vacant lots here. The applicant is proposing uh a few variations which we'll get into that involve landscaping, uh buffering, screening, and then signage as well. So the PDD encourages innovative design by allowing flexibility in standard zoning um providing the end results

equal or exceed the convenient or the the conventional zoning quality and the process is twofold where one it requires a preliminary plan which is going to have a preliminary PDD with an ordinance that will go to the city commission. It also involves a preliminary site plan, which is what we're looking at today, and then that gets followed up by a final development plan that would come before the planning commission in the future. So, the city commission will get involved when we get to the ordinance of the preliminary PDD. So, they will review that particular action. zoning ordinance requirements. The C2's district established establishes the zoning regulations which this property um and the proposed development meets all of those criteria with the exception of the waivers and exceptions that are being requested. Those waivers consist of a landscape buffer shift along the north end. So there is a landscape or there a utility easement along the north end and the applicant is proposing to shift the landscaping to the south end of the utility easement to remove any conflicts that the proposed trees and u the conflict the trees would have and the plantings would have with the utilities. So that's the first waiver that's being proposed. There's also a screening fence waiver. This particular property has a nursing home to the east. It's zone R3 which requires this property to have a screening fence between it and the property to the east. So there's a a waiver that's being requested for that. There's also a front yard landscaping distribution variance. So typically the front yard landscape

area is what we consider the front yard setback area which in this case would be the front 25 ft along Crawford Street which is a south street that's adjacent to this and the east street uh excuse me the west street which is Crawford Place. So this this is a corner lot where it has frontage on both Crawford Place and Crawford Street. And typically you would have a 25 ft setback here. The applicant is proposing the front yard landscape area be all the landscape area between the building and the adjacent streets and then maximum number of signs. The C2 district limits businesses to two signs and the applicant is proposing to have three signs on this site. So that would be the the fourth variation that's being requested. looking at the suitability of the site for development under the existing zoning. The site is physically and and legally suitable for the proposed office space. Really the only reason that the preliminary uh PDD is being amended is to accommodate the proposed variations character of the neighborhood. If you look at the surrounding properties, you have residential to the north, residential to so low density single family residential to the north, higher density multifamily residential to the east and to the south. And you have higher density commercial uh to to the west. And the proposed office would be a compatible um transitional node that would transition from the residential to the north east north and the east to the uh commercial higher uh density and and higher intensity development commercial development that you have with the rest of the Wilbur PDD public utilities storm drainage and services. All of the services are

present at this site. There's an 8 in sanitary sewer line located I'll get the located at the north end. So, this property does have access to sanitary sewer at the north end. There's also water a 6-in line in Crawford Place and an 8 in line in Crawford Street. And there's also sanitary or storm sewer rather 24 in and 18inch lines in in Crawford Street. So there is adequate utilities and services on the site for the proposed development. Street and traffic. This would be a low inensity nature uh professional office which u city engineers and public works did not require a traffic impact study for because of its nature. The property would have a little over 200 feet of frontage on both Crawford Place and Crawford Street. The proposed access would be off of Crawford Place with a 26 foot wide driving aisle in which you would come in and you'd have parking along the south side of the building or you could drive and have parking that's covered for employees on the north side of the building. City Engineering and Public Works found no operational or safety issues with the proposed plan. Conformance with the comprehensive plan. The future land use map shows this property being part of a neighborhood center. And this uh neighborhood centers do allow for offices as well as as neighborhood style retail. And the proposed development plan meets the locationational and development criteria of the neighborhood center incorporating compatible scale pedestrian circulation and quality exterior materials. So with that kind of addresses the

zoning piece uh with the final site development plan. The lot itself is 1.62 acres which can easily accommodate the proposed development based on its size. It does have street access off of Crawford Place and frontage on Crawford Street. The building orientation is such that it has a setback of a little over 78 ft from Crawford Place and a little over 125 ft feet from Crawford Street. So, it meets and exceeds the minimum setback requirements. The building design, the proposed building does incorporate several uh different quality materials. One is a blonde limestone veneer which you can see graphic here um at the top image. There's also charcoal face brick and then blonde face brick as well. And then we have charcoal gray architectural metal with zinc gray architectural metal as well and then aluminum storefront systems. So those are the primary materials that are being used. We do have a few renderings that the architect has produced. This would be the main frontage that would be facing Crawford as you drive by. And you can see the proposed landscaping that's in front of the building as well as the off- streetet parking that's on the south side of the building. You can see the limestone veneer as well as the charcoal and lawn brick frontage and the aluminum window framing system that's that's being proposed. This is another view um of the Crawford frontage. to the the south facade of the building. This would be a view from Crawford Place. So, if if you're driving by on on the west side, this would be the west elevation. This shows again the architectural metal, the limestone frontage, and you can also see the future

covered parking structure that is also part of this application. This would be also facing Crawford Place and this would be a view from the northeast elevation. Um, looking at the building. So, off streetet parking, the site does meet the off street parking requirements without going over the 125% maximum that residential or excuse me that office that professional offices are subject to. It has a loading unloading zone for supplies and materials being delivered and the landscape buffer. The the proposed plan does exceed the required amount of front yard landscaping along both Crawford Place and Crawford Street. Here is a comparison just so that you know because we do have a condition in here that the final site development plan that the landscaping from the landscape plan for the project be incorporated into the final development plan. Um so this is what the landscape plan looks like and this is the the preliminary development plan. And there's some slight differences, but having the applicant transpose the uh or transfer the landscaping from the landscape plan onto the final development plan is one of the condition that that we will be recommending. Signage the particular this particular property has over 181 um square feet that would be allowed based on its building frontage. It has building frontage on both Crawford Place and Crawford Street. So, there is quite a bit of of signage that would be allowed. And so, the the variation uh requesting three signs shouldn't be impacted by uh the the minimum parking

or minimum signage requirements that the site would have. site plan review process, technical request corrections, which we have identified as lot area data, landscape calculation data, uh building frontage corrections, and a compliance site lighting plan must be addressed on the final development plan. Staff analysis. This project represents a low inensity visually compatible infill development that would be on a track that's set vacant for um over 40 years. Staff does support the variations which we've we've noted and that would include the 6ft solid fence um because of a 15t proposed landscape buffer. So in lie of a solid fence along the east property line, the applicant feels it would be more aesthetic and more fitting in the character of of the neighborhood if it had um trees and plantings along that east boundary. And I'll show you this is the trees and plantings that they're proposing. So, it's a number of of a mixture of shade trees, a mixture of ornamental trees, and a mixture of evergreen trees to create a an attractive landscaping buffer between the subject property and the nursing home to the east. So suggested findings. While the applicant did not submit a formal schedule of development, the establishment of the of a condition of approval requiring the applicant to obtain a building permit within 18 months of a final development plan approval ensures that the plan development will substantially com completed within the regional specific time. So all of these criteria are tied specifically to um our code requirements for plan districts. U suggestion number

two is that the daytime operation of this professional office combined with the specific architectural finishes that we've gone over will not substantially injure or damage the use, value, or enjoyment of the surrounding R1 and R3 residential properties. Number three, the site is accessible from East Crawford and Crawford Place, which are adequate to carry the low volume traffic generated by a 6,750 ft office. The city engineering department has reviewed the circulation layout and determined that the driveway is adequate to serve the users without creating any traffic hazards. For number four, the infield development of the permitted office use on a site already served by existing public water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer infrastructure. I will not impose any undue burden on public services or facilities. The number six, the applicant has filed on behalf of SHR Advisors LLC satisfying the requirement that the parcel be held in single ownership. Number six, the required variation to shift the northern landscape buffer south is warranted by the design of the de development plan and the amenities incorporated in it as it accommodates the necessary landscaping while preventing tree roots from damaging public infrastructure within the existing 10-ft utility easement. This modification protects public utilities and is not inconsistent with the public interest. Seven, the required variation to distribute front yard landscaping between the building and the street rather than strictly within the front 25 ft is warranted by the design and the development plan and the landscape amenities incorporated in it because the building maintains a close proximity to the street frontage and the proposed distribution still fulfills the regulatory intent of having an

attractive streetscape and is not inconsistent with the public in interest. Eight. The requested variation to allow three signs is warranted by the design of the development plan providing necessary identification for the corner lot building with two uh street frontages because the total aggregate sign area remains under 80 or remains 181 square ft maximum. This modification is not inconsistent with the public interest. And then the requested variation to wave the 6ft solid fence along with the eastern property line is warranted by the design of the development plan and the landscape amenities incorporated in it. The applicant is providing a 15 ft landscape buffer along the eastern boundary which provides adequate visual transition between the proposed office use and adjacent R3 property. This modification is not inconsistent with interest of the general public. So here are the planning commission alternatives that we've identified. One, you could approve the amended preliminary development plan with all four requested variations subject to the conditions of approval recommended by staff and transmit a savorable favorable recommendation to the city commission for the preliminary plan ordinance. Number two, the you could approve the amended preliminary development plan and all four requested variations with modified or additional conditions of approval and transmit a favorable recommendation to the city commission with those modifications noted. So, this would be like the last application where um you could potentially modify the the variations like this. That's what Condition number three here is number three is you could propose or you could

approve the amended preliminary development plan but approve only select requested variations or approve variations to a lesser degree than requested. For example, extending the allowed front yard landscape depth to 40 ft rather than the entire area up to the building face. Um, the planning commission would then transmit a favorable recommendation to the city commission explicitly outlining which specific or uh variations are supported and to what extent. Number four, you could postpone consideration if additional information is needed. You would want to state such um postponement date or you could deny the application citing the specific findings thereof um as to why you would be denying it. Staff's recommendation is to approve the application for an amended preliminary development plan, including the requested variations of the northern landscape buffer, the front yard landscaping distribution, the east screening fence waiver, and allowance of three signs subject to the following conditions. Number one, the applicant shall submit a final development plan review and approval for the planning commission prior to issuance of any building permits. Number two, the submitted final development plan shall incorporate all revisions outlined in the staff technical corrections punch list um which which we've listed out there. Number three, the development of the subject track shall be completed in substantial performance with the approved preliminary development plan, the 15t eastern landscape buffer architectural building materials and submitted uh material schedules. The building permit shall for this project shall be obtained within 18 months of the final development plan being approved which that has not been approved yet. So that is the presentation. If you have any questions, let us know please.

Thank you Dustin. Very thorough. I have a need clarification. What was the reason for three signs rather than two? Yeah, I think Mr. Mr. Ren is here to to speak on that.

Okay. Well, when we're ready, I'll ask Mr. Ren to come up. Okay. That was my only question. Okay. Commissioners, are there any other questions of staff? Hearing none, I would ask Mr. Rens to come to the podium. Good evening. Excuse me. Good evening. I'm Charles Rens with JGR Architects. Um to address your your question, Carla, um the reason for the third sign is just simply because, you know, we are on a corner lot. You know, we have the we have the frontage there on Crawford. Uh we also have Crawford Place, and so the intent is just um not knowing for sure if we're going to do that, but we just want to know that we have the flexibility for some signage uh more than likely just on the building at that that location right there. We're not asking to exceed the allowable square footage or anything like that. The 180 foot is going to serve us well. Um it's just a matter of, you know, just from a wayfinding standpoint and people coming in to have, you know, a small amount of signage there. Okay.

At that that location. All right. Thank you, Charles. Okay. Are there any other questions of the applicant? Okay. Thank you. All right. All right. Are there any is there anyone in the audience that has a comment or concern? Okay, Dustin, is there anyone online? We do have a few members online, but I believe they're on here for another application, but if they want to share anything, they're more than welcome. It does not appear they Okay, need to speak for it.

All right. Hearing none, I would bring it back to the commission for a motion. I'd make a motion that we approve application PPD26-001 with the four staff recommendations in a second. It's been moved and second to approve this application with the four recommendations from staff. All those in favor say I. I opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. All right. We'll be moving on to the next application. I will be presenting that shortly. It's going to take me a moment to get the next presentation pulled up and then we'll we'll get rolling.

Okay. All right. So our next application is a request for a zoning map amendment. So a zoning change for the uh existing fire station number four that is going to be relocated to Crawford and Markley and therefore the existing site is going to be decommissioned in the future when that takes place. And so what is being proposed is a zoning change from our single family, which is what the fire station number four property is currently zoned to a planned or excuse me, a public use public facilities zoning district. So the public use district was created for public properties um such as fire stations, police stations, libraries, government buildings um and the like. And it also allows for some conditional uses such as maintenance facilities. And so that's kind of where this is heading potentially eventually. Um but right now we have a a property that is is not conforming in that it's a fire station in a residential zoning district and the proposal is to reszone it to a public use district. Looking at the surrounding properties, you have our properties, single family properties to the north. You also have our single family properties to the east. Get the laser pointer out. So you have our properties to the north and to the east. And then you have the Wilbur PDD which we just talked about directly to the to the east here. And you have a vacant C1 property to the south. So some background, the property

is part of the rolling hills edition which is platted in 1959. The fire station was constructed in 1969 and has operated from this location since that time period. The new fire station number four is currently under construction which will relocate it to the corner of Markley, the south east corner of Markley and Crawford Street. At that point in time, this particular facility will be recommissioned and and repurposed. And the city's facilities maintenance division intends to repurpose the property for a a maintenance facility. And so what they are is the city's facility maintenance division. They are a division of parks and wreck and they are responsible for maintaining public properties and public buildings. So they're not so much concerning themselves with public spaces like streets like the streets department would, but they they go out and they work on the parks buildings and the playground equipment and making sure that all of our equipment and structures are are maintained. So that's kind of their their role. And Troy Reinert, who is the superintendent for that division, is here and he's the applicant. And so when we get to speaking about the repurposing ideas, he can speak to those in more detail. Regulatory need. A maintenance facility is not a permitted use in the current existing R district and reszoning the property to public use as a first required step. Um maintenance facilities are not permitted uses in the public use district, but they are conditional use. And so the idea is that this property needs to be reszoned to public use to make it conforming for some sort of public use in the future. And if that public use were to be a maintenance facility, then that would require a public hearing with the planning commission for a conditional

use permit. So, the zoning ordinance requirements of the public use district, the existing fire station does meet all of those requirements, all the bulk regulations and standard um development requirements with the exception of its lot depth. So, the public use district has a minimum lot depth of 150 ft and that would be the east west depth because it has a brier briercliffe address. So, the main frontage is Briercliffe. The existing depth is 136 feet. So it is pre-existing non-conforming as to the the depth of the property. Looking at the s suitability of the site for redevelopment because it's a fire station that was an institutional structure and de built and developed specifically for uh fire station use. It's not really compatible or usable as a residence. So, it's not as as simple as, well, we'll just shut down the fire station and somebody can go live in it. It's not really designed that way. Um, and so that incompatibility is somewhat problematic and therefore the existing property is really unsuitable for residential zoning and residential use. However, it could be suited for civic uses permitted in the public use district. the character of the neighborhood. The surrounding area is primarily low density single family residential to the north and then to the west and there is commercial properties primarily the the the Wilbur edition to the east and then a vacancy one property to the south. And so the proposed public use district would be an appropriate transitional zone creating that that buffer between those commercial uses to the east and south from the existing residential that we have to the north and and to the east or

to the west. I keep saying that backwards. Public utilities, storm drainage and services. There is adequate facilities already serving the site. The site already has access to an 8 in sewer line as well as as water. And so the property is is well suited for redevelopment with no new burden being added to the area to the site. Street traffic. This site is accessed off of both Brier Cliff and Mry Mount Road. So currently fire trucks can come in one side and then quickly from the bay exit exit the other. That's how the operation currently works. So there's plenty of of good access. You're a partial of a block away from Crawford Street. So, the street network is certainly adequate for any type of public use district or any type of public use that would be um repurposed at this site. Conformance with the comprehensive plan. Here's the future land use map. You see that the R1 zoned properties all are part of the suburban residential land use classification and the future land use map. And then you have the neighborhood center that is the Wilbur edition to the east. And then you have the existing property and the properties to the south that are all public use or public semi-public which is a land use category within the comprehensive plan and the public use district specifically designed for this designation. So there is no amendment to the comprehensive plan needed and the locationational and developmental or development criteria within the uh neighborhood center district is being met and this is a a good transitional buffer again between the commercial uses and existing residential uses. So staff analysis the propos the proposed map amendment formally aligns with the property zoning

with its historic civic function and the regulatory intent of the public use district. Approving the public use zoning provides the affirmative public benefit of adaptively reusing municipal infrastructure preventing the building from sitting vacant and ensuring continued active maintenance for the site. The um resoning provides the planning or provides a the planning commission with the authority to strictly evaluate operations buffering through the required conditional use permit process and oversight not currently afforded through the our district. So what that means is if the maintenance facilities division comes forward with a conditional use permit to use this particular property as a maintenance facility. It would require conditional use permit which again would require public hearing with the planning commission in a specific site design that they would have to um present to you and be approved by you before they can move forward with that repurposing staff suggested findings. Number one, suitability of the property. The subject property is not suitable for development under its existing R zoning. The site is fully developed with a specialized municipal structure constructed in 1969. Featuring apparatus space and commercial grade infrastructure that do not accommodate standard single family residential occupancy. The site is inherently suited for the range of civic government uses permitted within the C4 or within the public use district. Finding number two, character of the neighborhood. The proposed reszoning to public use will not adversely affect the character of the surrounding properties. The site sits at a trans transitional boundary between residential and commercial zoning districts. Establishing a public district provides

a logical step down between the C1 and C3 commercial intensities to the south and to the east from the residential uh intensities. Any potential impacts from the specific establishment of a m maintenance facility will be governed and mitigated through a subsequent conditional use permit application. Impact on adjacent properties. The proposed change in use protects the living conditions of adjacent properties by replacing heavy fire apparatus with standard light duty pickup trucks potentially and transitioning from a 24-hour operational cycle to what the applicant represents as a standard daytime business structure. Adequacy of public facilities. Adequate public facilities and services are in place to support the public use zoning. The site is currently served by existing water, sanitary sewer, and storm, drainage infrastructure, and the establishment of uses permitted within the public use district will not overt tax these systems or increase the demand on public facilities. Traffic and safety. The proposed resoning will not create traffic congestion or safety hazard. The site has um great access to both Brier Cliff and Mry Mount. And the district will utilize routine traffic patterns that are inherently safer than historical high-speed emergency responses at the fire station. Number six, conformance with the comprehensive plan. The public use district conforms to the public semi-public uh on the future land use map and applying the public use zoning district satisfies the plan's development criteria by providing a transitional buffer to minimize operational impacts on surrounding properties. Public welfare approving the

requested public use zoning will not harm the public welfare. The relative gain to the public is approve approving the map amendment is the affirmative benefit of adaptively reusing existing municipal infrastructure which promotes civic operational efficiency and ensures continued active maintenance on the site. So the set uh planning has the or the planning commission has the following alternatives. Number one, they could recommend approval of the requested uh public use zoning. They could postpone consideration to a specific hearing date if additional information is needed or you could recommend denial if this application provides a specific reasons and findings uh for this recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the requested zoning and staff notes that this recommendation is strictly for the map amendment establishing the base zoning as a public use district and that a separate application for conditional use permit would be required. uh before a maintenance facility uh could be approved at the site.

City commission. Yeah. So there's Yeah. The recommends approval or recom Yeah. Make a recommendation to the city commission. Okay. Thank you, Dustin. Are there any questions of staff? Okay. Are there any questions of the applicant? Okay. I open it up for a motion. Madam Chair, I'd make a motion that we approve application ZMA26-2 based on the staff's findings. Second.

Been moved in a second to approve application ZMA26-00002. All those in favor say I. I. Oppose. Motion carries. Thank you. All right. Waters, can I can I ask a quick question? Was that with um any conditions or anything else to it? I don't think there was anything else, was it? I don't Just want to make sure. No, I don't see. Okay. All right. Not with all the other ones we had today. Huh? All right. We'll move into administrative items 3.4. All right. Okay. This one's shorter. All right. Good. Yay. Yay.

So, at our last meeting, we heard a proposal for a preliminary replat for the Salina family edition, which is Salina family's new location that they're working on redeveloping at Edison and Ohio Street. In that application, there was a condition number five that is a standard condition that basically requires final platting to be completed before any building permits can be issued. So that's a standard condition that we we typically approve. And so this here is an a request to adopt resolution number 2603 to remove condition number five from the approved um Salina family edition preliminary plat. And the reason for this is because the Salina family project is working in uh at a speed in which they are trying to obtain new market tax credits and as part of that effort they're trying to get a building permit prior to final platting being concluded. Now the one of the main functions of final platting or platting in general is to establish the location and dimensions of utility easements, drainage easements and access. And so what they are trying to do is they are they have submitted a they submitted a petition on March 13th which was after we had written the staff report for the actions that took place at March 17th to through separate instrument have easements for utilities dedicated by the city commission and have a easement for the drainage dedicated to the by the city comm to the city commission are

approved by the city commission and then a break in access along Ohio which is part of the plat but they're they're proposing to um have those all dedicated through separate instrument at their April at the city commission's April 13th meeting so that they can obtain a building permit prior to final platting being concluded. They can't do that because of this condition. And so what we've done is we've produced a resolution that would would remove this condition basically is where we're at. So contingent upon city commission's approval, these separate instruments fulfill the primary purpose of condition number six. Furthermore, existing conditions, the zoning map amendment publication and the traffic study uh traffic impact study agreement remain in place, ensuring the city is fully protected before any permits are issued. Additionally, as we got we went through this process, we identified that there are two outfall structures for the storm drainage, which are these lines here that are kind of Let me get the laser pointer up that outfall into the mapped flood plane area. And so the channel, the old Smoky Hill channel, river channel is where the storm water is primarily being directed to. And the outfall structure happens to be in the flood plane area which means they have to have um the division of water resources review it from this department of a in the state of Kansas and they also need a development permit from the city of Senus. So we're in addition to removing condition number five we're also proposing to add a condition for that um that piece of it the project. So staff suggested findings. The dedication of necessary public utility easements, a public drainage easement, and the approval of a break in access through separate legal instruments contingent

upon city commission approval fulfills the primary intent of condition number five by legally establishing required utility and access rights prior to issuance of a building permit. Finding number two, retaining existing conditions one and four ensures that the adequate interim protections remain in place preventing the issuance of a building permit until the uniform C3 zoning is published and the formal traffic impact study agreement is executed. Finding number three, the addition of a new condition requiring a flood plane development permit for the proposed storm water outfall um pipes ensures that the development will comply with the flood plane management regulations of the city code protecting public health and safety. So the planning commission has three alternatives that we've identified. one, you can approve resolution number 263, which removes condition number five and adds the condition about needing a flood plane development permit um for the outfall structures. Uh number two, you could postpone consideration requesting specific future meeting date if you believe that the additional information is needed to make a decision. Or number three, the planning commission could deny resolution number 2603 leaving the original six conditions of approval in place and provide and provide its specific reason for that decision. Staff recommend that you approve resolution number 2603 amending the conditions of the approval uh of application PP25004 which is the preliminary plat that you reviewed and approved at your March 17th meeting. So these would be the new um new findings or the new conditions. You would remove the original condition number five to allow the issuance of a building permit for Sina family healthc care center prior to submission and

approval of final plat. You'd retain the remaining five original conditions of approval and you would add the following new condition. Prior to the installation of the proposed underground storm water outfall pipes, the applicant shall obtain a flood plane development permit for work within the specific flood hazard area of this old Smoky Hill River as required under Sina code chapter 42. Any questions?

I want to comment one one piece here. Uh the applicants just as of today have already sent us uh correspondence from DWR that they've already had those plans reviewed and so they're actually in the process of working on those flood plane development permits already. Very nice. Okay. Any questions of staff? If not, I'd entertain a motion. Oh, is there anyone from the public who would like to speak? Sorry, we do not have anyone from the public. We do have um three representatives from Salina family here for questions. Okay. Okay. Online or in the room. All right.

We have one in the room from Sina family and two online from Sina family. No one from the public. Okay. All right. Hearing none, I'd entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I'd recommend we approve resolution 263 amending the conditions of approval for application PP25-00004 by removing the original condition number five, retaining the remaining five conditions and adding a new condition in regards to the flood hazard area. Second. It's been moved and second what Mr. Mel said. All those in favor say I. I.

Opposed? Motion carries. All right, staff. Is there any unfinished business or other business? So, those uh those two resonings and the PDD would be going to they have a 14-day protest period and then once that expires,

sorry, that the two resonings and the PDD both have a for all three have a 14-day protest period and then they'll be going to city commission on uh April 27th. And our next meeting is April 21st and we have one application it looks like right now that's a special use permit. And then the last item was uh in regard to the there's a question at the last meeting about some some updates on street projects. Um believe I think that was you here right me in regard to Ohio and shilling commissioner Farber wasn't weren't weren't you discussing it like the intersection at Ohio correct

and shilling. So, uh, I've talked to public works about that, about coming in and and, um, giving an update. We weren't able to line it up for this for this meeting, but we are looking at the next meeting. So, um, our our new director of, uh, public works, um, Ron is, uh, he's he's done he's he's done that before and where he was at before in Abalene, and he said he's familiar with it, and he he'd be able to come in. So, I I'm still making sure that the next meeting will work, but um but yeah, it will be coming up and we'll get on that. All right. Um is there one last call for anyone on from the public? I Yes. Go ahead. I just want to share something. Um and please state your name.

Yes. I'm Ann File. I'm the chief operations officer with Salina Health Education Foundation, Salina Family Healthcare Center. And really, I just want to say how appreciative we have been of this city staff in working through what is a very complex issue for us. Um, but their attention to detail, their responsiveness, just their their willingness to problem solve with us, it's really been instrumental in our in the success of our project. And I just I just wanted to say that publicly. So, thank you. Thank you for sharing that. I appreciate show our appreciation of you. We had you sit through this meeting and wait till last

and I appreciate the positive comments. So, thank you for those. Thank you for your patience. Yes. I will entertain a motion to

just a second. Uh I don't know how it's set up, but we we need to set these uh the different issues up in order of like this one was going to be short. The other there two others that were short. The first one we did took an hour and a half. So I would s suggest in the future that they be in a in a schedule where I mean these people had to sit around for 2 and 1/2 hours. They were online that long and they could have been out of here in 15 minutes. And I think it it's incumbent on us to do things in in the appropriate way. And I don't know why it makes any difference what order they're in, but they ought to be in the shortest one first going to the longest. That's my opinion.

And I I have a comment along that line also. it. Um, and we had talked about I think Commissioner Alt brought it up before that um, that we we maybe don't need all the information that's in the packet, a shorter version today's uh, and I know it was a complicated subject and I commend you guys miraculously for all the work that you put into this stuff, but and I don't know if we need to to do that for from a legal aspect, but it seems like um, that that information is available to the public. It's available to us, to the applicants, to the to the neighbors. So, um, if we could shorten that, um, the delivery a little bit, that would agree. We had pages read to us verbatim. Yep.

You know, it's our responsibility to look at this online and be ready. And I don't like sitting through somebody reading to me verb. I'm sorry to get upset here, but I don't like people reading to me verbatim what I've already what I've already read. And like Pat said, if there's some legal thing, we'd like to know about it, but it's not necessary. We'll make that clear in the next in the next meetings and we'll shorten them up for you. Okay. Or well, I mean, of course, it will have to include the stuff that's legally required, but but yes, no, I I completely understand where you're coming from on that. And for an example, like during this one, could somebody just say, "Hey, can we just can we take a vote now?" I don't know where the legal part is, but

so actually there's a there's Do you mind if I answer kind of both pieces here, Commissioner Alts and yours? It might an answer that might give a little more insight um as far as the ordering of the cases.

We do have uh public hearings are first on the agenda and the quasi judicial matters are first. Now I will look into whether we have the ability to move those on the agenda. Um sometimes legislative ones are not any shorter. And so unfortunately if we structure the agenda a certain way to do public hearings first and legislative and we are landed on that um ordering there's no telling if a case is going to be shorter or not. You know I don't know that we can actually order them shortest to longest. But I do see where you're coming from. And so I'll look at what what we can look at as far as reordering the agenda. Like I said, I don't know offhand uh what kind of requirements there are for if public hearings go first or not. And so we'll look into that.

Um there's another piece to that and I kind of Well, thank you. Could we have just if somebody would have said, "Well, hey, this is too long. We could just uh we're good now." So some of that might be um to an extent possibly, but at a certain there's a certain standard that we we for the public hearing that we have to get certain information out. Um so I think by just shortening up the presentations, we could probably get there to where that doesn't become the issue, you know. So, I didn't know if all needed to fall on your shoulders or if we could have if somebody could have just

If we would have gotten halfway through and somebody raised their hand to do that, I would have probably had to stop that and and say make sure that we got the information out that's that's required for the public hearing. Uh so, but maybe we can solve this by just shortening up presentations. Yeah. But that also falls into to the extent that we is reasonable, you know, right? I mean, I don't want to be unappreciative. There's a lot of work that went into what you did. Absolutely. But to his point, just a a summation as opposed to word for word going through there, I think, would would be appreciated as well. Yeah. Okay. I would entertain a motion to adjurnn, please. So move.

Okay. Moved in a second. All those in favor say I. I. Motion carried. Thank you.